in the fees collectively that would allow that to happen. >> is looking at what this developer can do, of the neighbors getting together to advocate to put time and energy towards this intersection, crosswalks, signal timing, whatever; need of improvements outside of the scope. other than that i am supportive of the project. seeing the 25 parkings, the project aims to have 40% two-bedroom units; there was an earlier iteration with less. >> ms. o'brian, project is

subject to a number of fees. the have a ballpark figure that you have calculated as to what all these fees come to in total? >> i don't have the final numbers; they have not been verified by the planning department yet. it would easily be in the 500,000 dollar range or more for the community impact fees from market/octavia; in addition roughly 250,000 dollars for the affordable housing fee, separate. >> exclusive the below-market units? >> correct. does not include -- we are providing 20 percent for affordable. >> thank you. this might be a little off the subject. is peter cohen here?

something directed to debose. it is not a question. a comment. directed to the other neighborhood groups. peter lewis is gone too. it is a common does not can you sense then. nevermind. i was going to say peter, in terms of mdna i would like to if anybody from dubose or eureka valley or castro or other groups involved in negotiating things with the developer, mr. lewis's comment is right, this is more part of the mdna and some of the other areas. the future, the side of market street, invitations that there are such things going on the extent to the mission dolores neighborhood association. i think it would also,

for staff, it would help especially in this case if the developer had a table or matrix showing the number of units, type of units, and square footage of the units. we are reviewing one project and my firm, project in san jose. there was a matrix showing the number of units and types, and square footage. these are too gross; these were by unit types. some of the two-bedroom units were bigger than others according to mr. pollock. i am supportive. i don't have anything else to add

to the rest of the commissioners comments. make a motion to approve with conditions and adopt findings. >> second. >> i know there has been some mention in the documentation here. the ability to do on-site housing because of -- we might have disposes of an artist hearing. generally speaking, the project has to have additional allowances from the city to qualify where rental rates are restricted, that is my understanding of the law; and not sure what this project is getting that allows it to have rental housing units on-site. >> planning staff, there is a cost agreement with this project, included with the original

condition material that went out for the september 6th hearing. >> i read that before, but i'm still not clear. there was a variance. it's still present? that may be viewed as the element as a part that allows this to be compliant. >> a variance both for the -- and dwelling unit exposure. >> i heard heard testimony about a variance not being necessary anymore. >> it is not anymore. >> you have a backup revision if this were found to be noncompliant? i'm not saying they would be. if there were a challenge to cost of hawkins, you could have a position that you can do an inlieu fee or -- so the

project to go forward. we always allow for that contingency if it were to happen. mitty mr. slider can elaborate. >> yes. section 415 of the planning code would apply, 20%, if funding does not materialize. >> i confused. is a 15 percent or 20 percent? i thought 15 percent if on-site. why is it 20? >> commissioners harry o'brien. project sponsor. the requirement for the conditions of approval is a standard 15 percent. a project sponsor has worked with the fire lanning department

>> the project sponsor's intention is to pursue that, working with the mayor's office of housing; it is our expectation that would be the case. >> it will be one of the other depending on whether get the financing. >> correct. >> thank you. >> commissioners, motion on the floor for approval. on that motion: (voting) >> i would like to close a

public hearing on the variances. we are disinclined to consider variances in new construction, but we are dealing with an unusual lot size, topography, shape, it appears the five criteria for granting of a variance our present and inclined to grant us with the standard condition. quick housekeeping matters: no decision is final until the decision letter is issued, with a 10 day appeal window. if anybody wants a copy of the letter, give your name and contact information to the staff planner or commission secretary and we will make sure you get a copy of it. >> you're not item 12, 2012.0145c, 1727 hayes street.

>> the department has received a number of letters from the neighbors and the hayes improvement association, and san francisco police department. -- moved into the subject

property into 1990; the use size is 1200 sq.ft not 1700 sq. ft. and will provide food and beverage to the majority of events held in the proposed space. will recommend approval of the request i am available for questions. >> project sponsor. >> my name is rebecca, -- architect on the project. we are designed that we have implied in this project; the original façade of the movie theater, primarily a solid

wood façade, improve is by an open storefront design that is going to be more inviting for the neighborhood. the front of what used to be the movie theater will now be a retail area, there will be small retail stalls, consisting of 150 sq. ft. each. the space will house movies as the majority of the use; they will be private parties and events that olympic will sponsor. the olympic restaurant seating space will expand into what was formally a lobbying concessionary out of the movie theater.

we feel that it will be a nice addition for the hayes street neighborhood; i will be happy to respond to any questions you have about the design for the use. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> david -- again. three points, page 4 executive summary and continuing on to page 2 of the draft motion, reference to class 1 -- of the project by the environmental determination is not attached. i don't know that is standard practice. if that is the case in the future, could such exemptions be included in the commission packet? i note that it is not available online. is one of those things that will catch up weeks later. i think it would be helpful

to have that environmental determination before you. also minor point, bottom-up eight seven and page 11, reference to service by muni lines 33, 43 and 71; i would add 37 serves also and use language that the lines currently served, because it could change the future. i want to speak in strong support of the project with a great and creative reuse of the red vic, i have known jack and betty for some time and this project is well-intentioned. it will create a joint and shared space for olympic

and the event space that would co-inhabit that area. i recommended for your approval. thank you. >> any additional public comment? public comment portion closed. >> this is a great adaptive reuse. singlescreen theaters, a long time ago in the 90s, we look at the issue of single screen theaters; the smaller theaters because of the cost of movies and technology has become more and more difficult to keep those alive; it is disappointing but at the same time in this case we are able to do something interesting and innovative, and potentially being able to have movies, and have restaurant-expanded space and do interesting events;

i love the idea of micro-businesses. i have been to the space and courtland. innovative concept. with the pop-ups going up, different kinds of food businesses, it seems like a hot time for people to have an opportunity to try their hand of the space before they find a brick-and-mortar space. i approve. >> it could take the ability of have a movie house within the thing; i hope that the bib lebovsky is the first movie shown. >> on that motion? (voting)

thank you the motion passes unanimously. you are now item 14, 2012.0662g, 3014 california street. >> good afternoon commissioners. item before you is a discretionary use. proposals to legalize conversion of the subject building from a two unit building to a single-family building; no other work is proposed. staff as well as a proposal base of the five criteria outlined in section 317, it meets two of the five requirements; the project meets its first two requirements in the the subject property is occupied by the property owner and on or plans to

occupy the premises after the conversion. regarding criterion three, when the removal of units will bring the closer units of conformance with prevailing density, the proposal does not meet the criteria. the three area port if you official determination of the legal number of units in the building the assessor records are not considered the official determination of the legal number of units nor is a number of mailboxes the property may have. i have confirmed the zoning administrators that the methodology is correct; regarding criteria four, whether removal of the unit

it does not meet this criteria. the prescribed zoning is rh2, the proposal will reduce the number of units from two to one. finally, with the removal of the building is necessary to correct; criteria five would only be satisfied under exceptional circumstances, to release significant design deficiencies that come from is its livability, and correct situations that would create uninhabitable space. the project is not meet this criteria because we were not provided any evidence that they were design deficiencies in the unit that was removed. the department policies to disrecommend approval on the criteria is not met;

the department recommendation is based clearly a policy. that concludes my recommendation. >> project sponsor. >> good evening. my name is katie saldo, my husband matt and i have lived in the neighborhood for over 10 years; we have a two-year-old daughter and a baby on the way early november. ee started looking for new housing over a year ago and wanted to stay in our neighborhood because we are very connected with the community there. i started a mom's group to connect of the families in the neighborhood. my father has done pro bono work for businesses there. parks, libraries we love it and don't want to leave.

>> my name is matt saldo, i want to -- thank supervisor -- for his support of the project. a bit of background about how we ended up in this home. the previous owner had purchased it as an investment to flip it and make a profit. he was unable to sell it. it was in escrow three times; it was not financicable because of discrepancies between the size of the legal status. i did my research. the criteria is complicated. i wonder the planning department information counter to understand how the surveys are conducted. they did not tell me what mr. -- said, counting the number of units

within 150 foot radius. that's what i did. if you do the study that way, what i found was that it would meet criteria. i purchased the home based on that. here we are now. there are four reasons why you should consider approving the merger today. the first is that this home was originally a single-family home; the 1899 standborn map shows it is a single-family home. it's been in his current state for over 20 years. in the overhead projector, there is a plumbing permit from 1990, showing fixtures being installed that exactly match what is there now. there are a few permits from the same time showing significant work; i house is sold shortly thereafter. longtime neighborhood residents

that i have spoken with have corroborated that it has been a single-family home for as long as they have been there. the third reason is that it is consistent with the policies of the general plan. you will see here what the general plan says, part 2, to control the merger of housing, clearly creates family housing. i know that affordable housing and rental housing is important for the city; as mentioned recruited throughout the plan. ahis is not a case where there is a trade-off between family housing and rental housing. if a developer were to purchase this house and convert it into two flats, also be very expensive flats. a i sold my previous flat in the

neighborhood; based on the square-foot price, these would be 1.1, 1.2 million each, not affordable housing. on the whole is consistent with the goals and policy of the city. fourth, the merger does meet 3 and quite possible 4 of the merger criteria; we are in agreement with the staff report that meets two criteria regarding owner occupancy; it does not meet criteria 4, but we do disagree on 3 and 5. mr. -- will spend some time telling you why does meet criteria 3 and 5.

thank you for your time today i am sorry if i am nervous. >> fred gladstone -- representing the class behind me. >> you can have three minutes? please continue. >> criteria 5 is a criteria that indicate that that might be difficult in creating another unit, two difficulties. first we don't know what that unit would look like, we cannot resurrect it. it quotes, can this be done through interior alterations? it cannot. to put it unit on each floor,

equal size units, not possible. talking about mostly criteria 3, the most important one. ask the applicant in the guidelines, look at all the dwellings within 150 feet; see in this case they are sick family. several ways to count. on a sandborn map, using a mailbox survey, 3r reports, or the planning information website. four very different things come up. public is getting confused; i have had several cases during the last year, one of which i'm putting up on the last year,

another one i did based on mary woods' staff approving based on a mailbox survye within the last two years. she found in both cases the third criteria was met. your staff report says it cannot count the legal number of dwelling units. but it says count the number of units, not legal. if you ask them, did you get issued 3r reports for the billing department? the answer is no. their website shows one number of legal units and the dbi

shows one. their website shows two. o the only way to do it is 3r report, cost 6000. perhaps you want to go in that direction. is an expensive direction but that is what the public should be hearing about. looks like i ran out of time. if you have any questions. >> i have lived in the neighborhood on nob for a number of years; i have a couple of letters. i don't have the time to go to the mall. i am matthew gregory. first letter is -- one of the

founding members, the alliance would like to offer special support for the proposed unit manager; allows long-term residents to stay in the neighborhood like the saldos. another neighbor across the street, 3014 california street, his name is denise kessel, we are thrilled that this house is no longer after two years of vacancy. the new neighbors are building a home for the family. the home was occupied as a single family home with bob our home in 1988. nes will go through is michelle

-- [indiscernible] 3018 california street. posing a major challenge for families in the city the saldos's home at 3014 has been configured as a single-family home for as long as we live next to it. i admire the saldos for seeking to legalize the status of their home. >> any additional public any additional public comment? the public comment portion is closed. >> i am reading a book about th